Batchelder v. Kawamoto Appellees' Brief - Greines, Martin, Stein ...

Because Dutch law did not recognize derivative suits, the court dismissed the
entire action. Id. at *lo.
Other courts faced with similar questions have likewise regularly
dismissed lawsuits on the authority of the laws of the place of incorporation of
the parent company. E.g., Brown v. Ferro Corp., 763 F.2d 798, 802-03 (6th
Cir.) (dismissing derivative action that did not comply with requirements of
state of incorporation), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 947, 106 S.Ct. 344, 88 L.Ed.2d
291 (1985); Nashua Sav. Bank v. Anglo-American Land, Mortg. & Agency Co.,
189 U.S. 221, 230, 23 S.Ct. 517, 518, 47 L.Ed. 782 (1903) (''Ply subscribing
to stock in a foreign corporation, defendant subjected itself to the laws of such
foreign country in respect to the powers and obligations of such corporation");
Canada S. Ry. Co. v. Gebhard, 109 U.S. 527, 537, 3 S.Ct. 363, 370, 27
L.Ed. 1020, (1883) (same); Fleeger v. Clarkson Co., 86 F.R.D. 388, 393
(N.D.Tex. 1980) ("plaintiff voluntarily purchased shares in a Canadian
corporation which put him on notice that his rights as a shareholder would be
construed according to Canadian law "); Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F.2d 696,
705-06 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885, 82 S.Ct. 1157, 8 L.Ed.2d 286
(1962); Levine v. Milton, 219 A.2d 145 (Del. Ch. 1966).
Plaintiff's solitary authority is not to the contrary, for it does not even
address the choice of law question. Plaintiff claims Judge Lew "inexplicably
30